Posted on 06/06/2003 12:58:21 AM PDT by JohnHuang2
In a conflict where every word uttered, every handshake, facial expression or body movement matters, this week's Aqaba summit had the international community focused on every subtle move expressed by all participants involved. First, the three Mideast leaders and the American president walked toward their speaking podiums in perfect stride, side by side. Then there was the first-ever public handshake between Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon and Palestinian Authority head Mahmoud Abbas that captured everyone's attention. And squeezed in between was the rhetoric: Abbas's speech renouncing terrorism, Sharon's pledge to dismantle newly constructed outposts, and of course president Bush restating his commitment to be personally involved in peace efforts.
But while commentator after commentator has praised these gestures and has expressed optimism that the talks will lead to a breakthrough, it is the other subtle hints observed that indicate the road map to peace will hit a dead end.
Here are some examples: Jerusalem Post columnist Herb Keinion, who attended the summit, noticed that Israel's flag was "nowhere to be seen," including at the portals of the Radisson Hotel where the Jordanians had set up the summit press center. While the U.S. and Palestinian flags were whipping in the desert wind alongside the flags of the EU and Syria (a nation not even represented at the conference), Israel's blue and white was limited to a pin on Sharon's lapel.
Another question no one is asking is: Why was it necessary to hold two back-to-back summits, one in Egypt on Tuesday and the second in Jordan on Wednesday? Couldn't all the parties interested in Middle East peace meet under the same roof? Answer: The Saudis, who are trying their dardest to distance themselves from the axis of evil, weren't even willing to be on the same side of the Gulf with the Israelis. How's that for a "moderate" nation that only last year claimed it wanted to normalize relations with Israel? Can anyone now doubt that their peace plan reveled by New York Times columnist Tom Friedman was an attempt to divert attention from their ties to terror? And what about Egypt and Jordan? The two nations extended their gracious hospitality to host the summits, but both failed to express any intention of re-instating their ambassadors to Jerusalem, whom they called home following the start of the violence almost three years ago. How's that for a non-gesture?
Now the remarks themselves: While President Bush made it clear that he is committed to Israel's security as a "vibrant Jewish State," Abbas recognized Israel as a state, but left out the "Jewish." In other words, Abbas is not willing to abandon the so-called right of return for Palestinian refugees to the homes they abandoned during Israel's War of Independence. As Abbas is fully aware, a flood of refugees into pre-1967 Israel would in effect demographically destroy the Jewish state of Israel as we know it. In fact, Israelis on all sides of the political spectrum regard the so-called return of refugees as a non-starter.
So in the end, will this event go down as the one that jumpstarted the parties on the road to peace? Probably not. In a region where all smiles, frowns, coughs, sneezes, hiccups and burps count, those who know how to read the signals emanating from the summit understand that the Palestinian leadership and the rest of the Arab world are still not willing to end the conflict once and for all.
This tells us what is really happening.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.